Seriously? You're arguing that hobbies and doing what you want is "really work"?
The idea of Work, in a Capitalistic sense, is activities you do for someone else, that make money for them above and beyond what you are paid for, and that you are compulsed to do with the threat of "no money, no food, no home".
With what I am talking about, I can change freely to whatever I wish to do, right now. I have no specter hanging over me threatening "no access and utilization of basic resources". If I want to chill and do nothing, I do precisely that. If I want to develop stuffs with electronics, I can do that as well. And when I'm bored, I can walk away with not a care. Try that in a "corporate setting".
And my "frankly rude accusations" match up pretty well with the original stockholm situation itself. In the end, if you don't "play nice" with capitalism, it threatens to end you as well, albeit slower than what the bank robbers wanted to do. And yet, so many people bounce to capitalism's defence. Hence, Stockholm Syndrome.
If you're going to argue definitions, you should probably quote your source. Dictionary.com's primary definition for work is "exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something". There's no mention of you "having to do it for someone else", as you say. Although later definitions do mention employment.
So it seems like you're both arguing whether definition 1 or definition 3 of a word is the right definition.
So going to the bathroom is work, as is rolling one's body out of direct sunlight and ordering takeout. It's not surprising that people who don't have to work at a job any more continue to do things like breathe and change clothes, so let's not talk about that; rather let's talk about how people who don't have to work a job anymore continue to work a job - like what the article is about.
The idea of Work, in a Capitalistic sense, is activities you do for someone else, that make money for them above and beyond what you are paid for, and that you are compulsed to do with the threat of "no money, no food, no home".
So by that definition, independently wealthy people never "work" because they could always quit without financial worries.
They never have to work. They may choose to do so. But in the end, they have that as a choice. We are talking of compulsory labor, where I have to do something to make someone else even more money, so I can have something to eat and a place to sleep.
You don't have to work either. Your labor is not compulsory either, you don't have to do anything. You choose to work so that you can have something to eat and a place to sleep.
(I personally think this is an excellent choice on your part and you should be proud of yourself.)
The idea of Work, in a Capitalistic sense, is activities you do for someone else, that make money for them above and beyond what you are paid for, and that you are compulsed to do with the threat of "no money, no food, no home".
With what I am talking about, I can change freely to whatever I wish to do, right now. I have no specter hanging over me threatening "no access and utilization of basic resources". If I want to chill and do nothing, I do precisely that. If I want to develop stuffs with electronics, I can do that as well. And when I'm bored, I can walk away with not a care. Try that in a "corporate setting".
And my "frankly rude accusations" match up pretty well with the original stockholm situation itself. In the end, if you don't "play nice" with capitalism, it threatens to end you as well, albeit slower than what the bank robbers wanted to do. And yet, so many people bounce to capitalism's defence. Hence, Stockholm Syndrome.